There is that; however, I am referring to the modern 1960’s onwards issue health research. Before that, in the West, tobacco was an accepted given. “Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.”

BB wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:And there is no reason smokers should feel good about smoking; it is destructive to them and to those around them.

It's hardly destructive to those around them.

Of course there is second hand smoke, itself a serious problem, but the pain of watching a loved one die from a tobacco related illness, or a loved one struggling to breathe because his or her lung are turned to garbage by the tar and other crap in cigarettes, is destructive.

Nor does the smoker, increasingly relegated to smoking in private

Which is where it should be. And far away from children.

I would be more inclined to think the negative cost of smoking is by in large, one's own health, in which case I return to my statement - Why go around making smokers feel bad about it?

Which is a very narrow, very limited, one-eyed point of view. One’s own health goes to hell because of one’s addiction to smoking, it has no effect on one’s loved ones? Smokers aren’t evil. Tobacco executives are, for knowing the dangers of cigarettes, for making cigarettes more addictive and for keeping that all secret until finally outed by one of their own. Smokers, who most often start very young, have made poor, immature choices, often suckered by the tobacco suits into thinking smoking is something special, something that will make one feel special.

What is there to feel good about smoking? Your bad breath, that you are turning your lungs into garbage, likely shortening your life span, the money waste on buying cigarettes, that you stink like an ashtray after smoking a cigarette? All of the for a nicotine buzz and feeling cool because you have a fag hanging out you mouth?

Finally, let me ask you this Tilt, how does the way you have written your words in this thread, stack up against the Buddha's criteria for right speech?

I have no problem with what I have written. As a health care giver, I have seen repeatedly the aftermath of smoking and the pain on the faces and in the voices of the families involved. There is no defense for smoking.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

And I would also add I have seen the pain and unbelievable regret on the faces and in the voices of the smoking victims. There is no defense for smoking.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Sorry, I haven't read through this whole thread but I'm popping in with my two cents.Cigarettes send a small surge of endorphins to the brain. That's part of why smokers love it. Especially depressed smokers.

Tobacco is definitely a drug and nicotine is definitely an intoxicant. I can say this from my own (unpleasant) experience as well as from a scientific point of view. Nicotine is a highly toxic and addictive stimulant. There should be little confusion around this question.

in·tox·i·cate (n-tks-kt)v. in·tox·i·cat·ed, in·tox·i·cat·ing, in·tox·i·catesv.tr.1. To stupefy or excite by the action of a chemical substance such as alcohol.2. To stimulate or excite: "a man whom life intoxicates, who has no need of wine" (Anaïs Nin).3. To poison.

Thus smoking is definitely incompatible with the 5th precept. The reason why cigarettes are treated differently from alcohol in most sanghas has to do with conventions and traditions, rather than with objective criteria.

Pannapetar wrote:Tobacco is definitely a drug and nicotine is definitely an intoxicant. I can say this from my own (unpleasant) experience as well as from a scientific point of view. Nicotine is a highly toxic and addictive stimulant. There should be little confusion around this question.

in·tox·i·cate (n-tks-kt)v. in·tox·i·cat·ed, in·tox·i·cat·ing, in·tox·i·catesv.tr.1. To stupefy or excite by the action of a chemical substance such as alcohol.2. To stimulate or excite: "a man whom life intoxicates, who has no need of wine" (Anaïs Nin).3. To poison.

Thus smoking is definitely incompatible with the 5th precept. The reason why cigarettes are treated differently from alcohol in most sanghas has to do with conventions and traditions, rather than with objective criteria.

I don't agree. I used to smoke two packs a day and the cigarettes neither stupefied me nor excited me. So that's your first two definitions out. All that the cigarettes did was to provide temporary relief from the misery of craving a cigarette but not having one.

As for the third definition, it's true that nicotine poisons you, but the the fifth precept isn't about intoxication in this sense. And so although smoking is undesirable, I'd say it's no more against the fifth precept than, say, indulging an addiction to cholesterol-rich cream cakes.

I'd have to agree with Macavity. Nicotine doesn't have the same consciousness altering properties as alcohol, emphetamines, cannabis, heroin, cocaine etc.Nicotine is definitely a very toxic poison, as per the extract from the PIM substance datasheet in one of my earlier posts, but being a poison doesn't necessarily mean that it intoxicates.Kind regards

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Macavity wrote:I used to smoke two packs a day and the cigarettes neither stupefied me nor excited me.

The fact that -as a heavy smoker- one is desensitized to the stimulating effect of nicotine does not mean that there is no effect. Nicotine is a stimulant. A stimulant excites. Therefore, nicotine is one type of intoxicant, though its psychoactive effect is relatively mild. I am afraid this is a scientific fact and therefore it's not really open to discussion. At best you could argue that "mild stimulants" should not be included in the precept. But then we are arguing semantics. Clearly, the more pernicious property of nicotine is its addictiveness, and it does cause "heedlessness" as beautifully evidenced in previous posts of this thread.

Macavity wrote:As for the third definition, it's true that nicotine poisons you, but the the fifth precept isn't about intoxication in this sense.

That maybe your interpretation. I interpret the fifth precept in the sense of in-toxicants in the literal sense, where it means poison. One should abstain from poisoning the body and the mind, especially with substances that are detrimental to samadhi. A formulation in this spirit was given by Thich Nhat Hanh in what he calls the Five Mindfulness Trainings. This represents in my view the most complete understanding of the spirit of the precepts.

Pannapetar wrote:I interpret the fifth precept in the sense of in-toxicants in the literal sense, where it means poison.

Well there goes my 32-ounce Coca Cola. And my coffee. And my tea, I guess, cuz it has a little bit of caffeine. And my orange juice if it happens to ferment somewhat and contain a trace of alcohol. And my butter. And my donuts.

D'oh!

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

Jechbi wrote:Well there goes my 32-ounce Coca Cola. And my coffee. And my tea, I guess, cuz it has a little bit of caffeine. And my orange juice if it happens to ferment somewhat and contain a trace of alcohol. And my butter. And my donuts.

It ain't easy bein' a Buddhist!

I guess the key is moderation. For example, I like to drink green tea. But tea is a stimulant and I can feel that is has an effect on my meditation practice, at least, if I drink more than three cups per day. So for now, I set myself a limit of three cups.

The important thing is: I don't find it meaningful to ban alcohol completely while at the same time okaying heavy smoking. This is in my view living by the letter of the precepts rather than by its spirit. The ancient adage "moderation in all things" (was it Aristotle?) seems much closer to the idea of the "middle way".

Tobacco is a drug, I feel nausiating if the monks don't include that in the 5th precept , that's a big fault on Buddhism's part if they don't include that. Nicotine is a powerful drug. One drop of nicotine can kill a horse. Nicotine stupifies and it's harmful to the body. And also it's causing the 2nd Noble truth to work and hence make the 1st Noble truth to function.

sundara wrote:Tobacco is a drug, I feel nausiating if the monks don't include that in the 5th precept , that's a big fault on Buddhism's part if they don't include that. Nicotine is a powerful drug.

I don't think it's fair to critisise the Sangha at large for the acts of some Monks.So far the consensus tends to be that although Tobacco is a harmful poison, it does not violate the 5th precept because it does not unto itself, cause people to act in a unskillful way.

That's not to say it's accepted by the Sangha at large, in the branch monastery of the Ajahn Chah lineage that I stayed at, smoking wasn't really acceptable conduct. I think that many amongst the Western Sangha realise that smoking has the potential to cause criticism.

If you feel nausiated by the idea that some monks smoke, or allow others to smoke, then perhaps one might like to examine one's views, and see what is really causing the bad feelings. Suffering is not reliant upon an external source - It comes from within.

Be well my friend

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)